My take on this... the retired cop was in his 70s but he still wants to be a tough guy and start shiat with people in the street. But a younger guy can really hurt him, so he need his gun. So you see, without a gun he wouldn't feel comfortable acting like a tough and picking fights in public. And isn't protecting his right to do that worth a few lives here or there?

This incident is just another example of why "shall issue" concealed weapons permit statutes need to be repealed. The only people who should be allowed to legally carry firearms in public are law enforcement, active and retired.

The death penalty applies for every crime, from attempting to ask direction while black to throwing popcorn in a movie theatre.

But you can't kill a fetus the size of a pin head even if it almost certainly will cost the life of the mother-to-be or was produced by incestuous father-daughter rape and will certainly be a miserable shameful inbred misfit and cause of misery and crime for life.

Dimensio:This incident is just another example of why "shall issue" concealed weapons permit statutes need to be repealed. The only people who should be allowed to legally carry firearms in public are law enforcement, active and retired.

The "stand your ground" needs to be repealed. The problem is that all he has to do is claim that he was afraid and he is good. It doesn't matter if he actually had a reason to be afraid, it just matters that he was.

Also, I think that there ought to be a maximum age for carrying a firearm. Too many old people get angry and frustrated when their mind starts going. This guy managed to get through his career without snapping, so it's likely that this was some sort of age related mental deterioration.

vpb:Dimensio: This incident is just another example of why "shall issue" concealed weapons permit statutes need to be repealed. The only people who should be allowed to legally carry firearms in public are law enforcement, active and retired.

The "stand your ground" needs to be repealed. The problem is that all he has to do is claim that he was afraid and he is good. It doesn't matter if he actually had a reason to be afraid, it just matters that he was.

Self-defense statutes in Florida (and in fact in most states) require a fear of imminent great bodily harm or death to be "reasonable". A fear of injury that is not "reasonable" will not justify the use of deadly force.

Also, I think that there ought to be a maximum age for carrying a firearm. Too many old people get angry and frustrated when their mind starts going. This guy managed to get through his career without snapping, so it's likely that this was some sort of age related mental deterioration.

As a police officer, any previous outbursts of anger were likely overlooked or considered justified.

You know someone next to me texting during a movie would be kind of a distraction, I admit. But do you know what would REALLY be irritating and make it hard to watch a movie? Some asshole getting up and screaming at someone else for silently texting in their seat then coming back in the theater after making a complaint and shooting that person to death ... THAT'S the worst!

HaywoodJablonski:Fissile: This guy has a history of confronting people in movie theaters http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/florida-woman-alleged-theate r -shooter-confronted-texting-3-weeks-article-1.1580192

That's the flaw in all the "armed society is a polite society" theory. It's bullshiat.

Carrying a gun doesn't make you any more polite, it just makes you feel powerful. Every little incident of aggravation, annoyance, rudeness, aggressive driving, etc. that under other circumstances would result in a fistfight at worst, now results in dead bodies when people are armed.

When you have a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail, and when you carry a gun everywhere...well, it's not surprising what tends to happen.

He's an old bully who is accused of harrassing other movie patrons with his pet peeve (CNN's top headline now). He got in someone's face after he couldn't get him thrown out (left the theater in a huff, returned in a huff without an employee) and pisses off the victim. Victim stands up for himself, throws popcorn and old man shoots, hitting both the wife and the husband.

This all happened during the previews. The movie was not even running yet. Guy had a big chip on his shoulder and panics when someone doesn't cower to his badge-less posturing. Charge him with murder and attempted murder, take away his toys and lock him up. Then throw more popcorn at him.

/(retired) Cops are not above the law, they are supposed to uphold it. yada yada, broken record.

Dimensio:This incident is just another example of why "shall issue" concealed weapons permit statutes need to be repealed. The only people who should be allowed to legally carry firearms in public are law enforcement, active and retired.

Lines which you will never cross without taking the time to think of where you're going, why you're going there, and what's at stake.

If you just keep doubling down, it's an exponential track to war. Anger is an emotion we can control if we decide to. Unchecked, uncontrolled anger can evolve into homicidal rage. There are times when that is called for, but a great many more when it isn't.

This ex-cop got frustrated, got humiliated, got yelled at, got embarrassed, felt ineffective, and ended up with a face full of popcorn "in front of everyone". He had underestimated his opponent, who never backed down. He couldn't handle it, and he lost control of himself. The mistake happened when he allowed himself to get that pissed off in the first place.

Watch how smart people handle react when stuff happens to them. They never add energy to a situation. They damp it out, de-escalate, oftentimes without being obvious about it.

As a retired cop, the shooter probably had the protection of a new federal law that prohibits states from taking guns away from ex-cops. (Wikipedia article, which I have not fact checked.)

Random side story here:

You know why Dianne Feinstein is such an gun control fanatic?

She was the one who found Harvey Milk's dead body after he and the Mayor Moscone was gunned down by an ex-supervisor when they were both on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. This act also made her Mayor and led to her gaining a higher political profile eventually leading to her election to the US Senate.

Of course, the ex-supervisor (Dan White), was also an ex-cop, and performed the assassinations with his former service revolver, so almost no gun control legislation sponsored by her or anybody else would have applied.

mbillips:This probably isn't a popular view, but my theory is that the victim was an entitled prick.

Exhibit A: He's texting to his THREE-YEAR-OLD during the previews. Fark, dude, you got a sitter and went to the movies. Stay in the moment; your precious snowflake won't die from lack of hovering.

Exhibit B: Cranky old man says something about the texting. Dickweed cops an attitude, points out that he's texting with his precious snowflake, so everyone should shut up. Cranky old man goes and tells the manager, who probably says, "It's the trailers, old dude; the house lights aren't even down all the way. Chill." Cranky old man comes back to his seat.

Exhibit C: Words are exchanged. I'm assuming Mr. I Got Shot copped an attitude about the old man narcing on him to the management. That's what you're supposed to do when someone is being a dick at the movies. Turning your farking phone off and leaving it in your pocket is the correct response to someone asking you to stop texting at the movies, not giving them a ration of shiat.

Exhibit D: Guy throws popcorn at an old man. Seriously, who throws popcorn? That's asking for a beatdown.

The old guys' ONE fault was bringing a gun and using it. Everything else is on the shooting victim. This should be a lesson to you gun fondlers out there, to leave the thing at home unless you're actually going somewhere hazardous, because there are pricks out there in the normal course of life that will make you LONG to shoot them.

How farked up is your life if someone throwing popcorn at you makes you "long" to shoot them? Grow up farkwads, have some self control.

mbillips:This probably isn't a popular view, but my theory is that the victim was an entitled prick.

Exhibit A: He's texting to his THREE-YEAR-OLD during the previews. Fark, dude, you got a sitter and went to the movies. Stay in the moment; your precious snowflake won't die from lack of hovering.

Exhibit B: Cranky old man says something about the texting. Dickweed cops an attitude, points out that he's texting with his precious snowflake, so everyone should shut up. Cranky old man goes and tells the manager, who probably says, "It's the trailers, old dude; the house lights aren't even down all the way. Chill." Cranky old man comes back to his seat.

Exhibit C: Words are exchanged. I'm assuming Mr. I Got Shot copped an attitude about the old man narcing on him to the management. That's what you're supposed to do when someone is being a dick at the movies. Turning your farking phone off and leaving it in your pocket is the correct response to someone asking you to stop texting at the movies, not giving them a ration of shiat.

Exhibit D: Guy throws popcorn at an old man. Seriously, who throws popcorn? That's asking for a beatdown.

The old guys' ONE fault was bringing a gun and using it. Everything else is on the shooting victim. This should be a lesson to you gun fondlers out there, to leave the thing at home unless you're actually going somewhere hazardous, because there are pricks out there in the normal course of life that will make you LONG to shoot them.

Texting about a three year old does not equal texting a three year old.

The shooter confronted the texter for texting during previews. During previews. This is often before they even advise you to turn off your phone.

Yes, the dead guy didn't have to confront the shooter, but he was probably incredulous that someone was making a big deal about texting during previews.

The old guys one fault was shooting someone dead when they were in no physical danger due to a confrontation that started because they got bent out of shape that someone was texting during previews.

Did you miss the part where he was stalking around behind a woman who had texted at the theater until she hid in the bathroom to get away from the angry old cuss? And did you miss that the guy was texting with his daycare provider and not his kid?

Seems you've overlooked some key facts to take your unpopular position on this. Maybe you ought to go re-read the article and make sure you actually understand the facts presented before you form an opinion?

farking_texan:1. Turn off your freaking cell phone in the theater.2. Turn off your freaking cell phone in the theater.3. Checking up on your precious snowflake doesn't give you a valid excuse to ruin the moviegoing experience for other people. Take it outside.4. Turn off your freaking cell phone in the theater.5. A grown-ass man was throwing popcorn at someone who was asking him to act in a civilzed manner in a public place? Douchenozzle. Not deserving of death, but douchenozzle.6. A grown-ass man was throwing popcorn at someone who was asking him to act in a civilized manner in a public place. Douchenozzle.

Yes the tragedy here is that someone might have been an annoying asshat at a movie theater.

It's very telling that you barely acknowledge the murder but you seem pretty pissed about texting during a movie.

Super_pope:I'm surprised this doesn't happen more often. This guy came up thinking he could basically pick and chose who to kill by announcing, "He was reaching for something, I felt threatened," and he was right. Problem is he doesn't have the magic shield against prosecution that a badge entails now.

What do you want to bet everyone in the department knew for years that this was an erratic guy who was prone to trying to hurt people who crossed him or talked back to him?

This. But being this is Florida, the usual suspects are making this into a referendum on SYG and gun control, rather than taking a good, long look at LEOs.

The Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act, which allows all retired law enforcement at every level of government to carry concealed weapons anywhere, with no oversight, was reauthorized and expanded twice by President Obama. It's OK to exempt active and retired law enforcement from any and all gun control, even though cops are much more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol, and be involved in domestic violence, but a national concealed carry program for people who want to undergo training and a background check? Out of the question.

farking_texan:1. Turn off your freaking cell phone in the theater.2. Turn off your freaking cell phone in the theater.3. Checking up on your precious snowflake doesn't give you a valid excuse to ruin the moviegoing experience for other people. Take it outside.4. Turn off your freaking cell phone in the theater.5. A grown-ass man was throwing popcorn at someone who was asking him to act in a civilzed manner in a public place? Douchenozzle. Not deserving of death, but douchenozzle.6. A grown-ass man was throwing popcorn at someone who was asking him to act in a civilized manner in a public place. Douchenozzle.

ikanreed:Dimensio: This incident is just another example of why "shall issue" concealed weapons permit statutes need to be repealed. The only people who should be allowed to legally carry firearms in public are law enforcement, active and retired.

Can I participate in the dogpile on you too, or are you good?

The joke, as it is constructed, is not merely in that police officers (both active and retired) are often regarded by major firearm restriction advocates as being more "trustworthy" to carry firearms when in public, but also in that federal law explicitly allows both active and retired law enforcement to carry concealed firearms in every state (with limited exceptions) regardless of state laws regarding the carrying of concealed deadly weapons, thus making Florida's "shall-issue" concealed weapons permit statute irrelevant to the shooter's legal ability to carry a firearm.

Generation_D:It appears if you are a cop, or a wannabe cop, Florida is your paradise these days.

All you need is

1) A gun

2) An attitude

The shooting gallery is open, time to go hunting!

Note: fans of civilization that doesn't resemble Beirut in the 1980s, Somalia today or perhaps a very populated Old West, might want to just skip Florida entirely.

Let the inbreds and the senile battle it out.

Actually the "Wild West" had stricter gun control laws, and a lot less firearm deaths (at least that they documented, I suspect some people get killed and were buried in the desert without a trace...so the numbers may be skewed). I read that the most firearm deaths in any year, was 4 in Tombstone, the year of the OK Corral gun fight. Most frontier towns averaged 2 firearm deaths a year (again, this is something I read, so take with a grain of salt unless you want to do your own research).

Generation_D:Yeah, but that's the logic Invader Zimm used when the Scary Black Kid was Walking and Talking on the Cell Phone in a threatening manner, wearing a hoodie and carrying skittles.

That worked because (a) Zimm was injured by Trayvon Martin and (b) the other witness in that case was a corpse.

In this case you have the injured wife, the cop's wife, the off-duty sheriff that disarmed the shooter, the nurses that tried to save the victim's life, et cetera. The lawyer is using "Stand Your Ground" because it is all he's got to defend his crazy client that shoots people in movie theaters.

Dimensio:This incident is just another example of why "shall issue" concealed weapons permit statutes need to be repealed. The only people who should be allowed to legally carry firearms in public are law enforcement, active and retired.

The movie theater had a "no guns" policy, so I'm not sure what this has to do with people who carry legally.

Deathfrogg:People rarely "just snap". This murder comes from a lifetime of being a cop who had felt entitled to "respect" based on the presence of a badge and the corresponding license to kill that comes with it, and then being disrespected for being the self-appointed "law of the theater". This guy was building up to something like this, probably for years.

I don't know that being a cop had anything to do with it. As in, I don't think being a cop makes you a person entitled to want respect, rather I think being the kinda person who wants to be entitled to respect makes you want to be a cop.

Why are there so many piss-pants cowards out there that are so afraid of a "beat-down" that they want to keep their finger on a hair trigger all the time? It must be an awful life to walk around terrified of everyone around you all the time. People like you just need to be taken outside and have the crap kicked out of them one time just to show you that it's not the end of the world ... it's not worth being afraid all the damn time.

Dimensio:As is evident by the fact that no criminal charges have been brought against the former police chief.

The pervasive popular myth emboldens people too stupid to understand it (see: This guy). It doesn't matter what's really happening, they shoot people thinking they've got carte blanche and then find out later (when the news cycle has moved on) that it doesn't work that way for reasons too subtle to fit into a soundbite.

DubyaHater:If you can drag "Stand Your Ground" out every time someone is murdered, the law has become a joke. The law is being treated as grounds for legal murder. It's a bullshiat law that should be repealed

The only people who do this are gun grabbers looking to repeal the law. That's all you heard about the Zimmerman case and it was never even mentioned in the trial.

The Larch:Latinwolf: A few people have already claimed he was at fault for daring to text during movie reviews.

He texted in a movie theater, then he laughed at an old man who asked him to stop, and then he threw popcorn at the old man and laughed at him some more when the manager failed to do anything about it.

I'm not saying that he deserved to die, but it's easy to see why someone would come to that conclusion.

Where in the hell are you getting your misinformation. It clearly stated he was texting during previews. During previews a lot of times the lights are still on in the theater.

At no point did the article say that the manager or usher came and spoke to the texter, hence why the texter is quoted as saying "What did you go and tell on me when?" When the old man came back, witnesses stated, alone and agitated, most likely because no one is going to stop a texter during previews.

Reading comprehension is a skill taught in elementary school perhaps you need to go back.

The Larch:And what bothers me is that I seem to be in a twilight zone episode full of people who are saying that it's OK to text in a theater.

The way I read the thread, these people are saying texting in a theater isn't all that bad when compared to being shot for it.

Yes, I agree with you that if someone is texting during the film (I don't give a sh*t about previews), they're horribly rude and selfish. But the context for this thread is whether you get to shoot someone for that. So in that context, no, I don't think texting was all that big of a deal.

The Larch:Latinwolf: A few people have already claimed he was at fault for daring to text during movie reviews.

He texted in a movie theater, then he laughed at an old man who asked him to stop, and then he threw popcorn at the old man and laughed at him some more when the manager failed to do anything about it.

I'm not saying that he deserved to die, but it's easy to see why someone would come to that conclusion.

Yeah I'm sure the guy angry enough to murder someone wasn't hostile towards the guy at all despite the report of another patron being harassed by the shooter on her way to the bathroom a week prior.

The Larch:Latinwolf: A few people have already claimed he was at fault for daring to text during movie reviews.

He texted in a movie theater, then he laughed at an old man who asked him to stop, and then he threw popcorn at the old man and laughed at him some more when the manager failed to do anything about it.

I'm not saying that he deserved to die, but it's easy to see why someone would come to that conclusion.

Texting, teasing, and throwing popcorn!? . Seriously, if things this small in magnitude cause you fits of rage: seek help. I can't wait until the next time someone does something I don't necessarily like (the next time someone farts next to me on a plane, BOOM. Shows over cupcake).

DROxINxTHExWIND:Well in their defense, if the guy was a cop and he managed to get through his career and retire with benefits they probably feel like they have a good idea about his background since he technically had to be mentally stable to hold the job. I also assume they think that cops may have to deal with people who they have come into contact with during their careers who may not be happy about their last interaction.

This is no defense. Per capita police are convicted of more assaults, murders, and something like twice as many rapes and sexual assaults as the totality of "civilians."

The Larch:Latinwolf: A few people have already claimed he was at fault for daring to text during movie reviews.

He texted in a movie theater, then he laughed at an old man who asked him to stop, and then he threw popcorn at the old man and laughed at him some more when the manager failed to do anything about it.

I'm not saying that he deserved to die, but it's easy to see why someone would come to that conclusion.

Very true, but the difference between someone stuck a 12-year-old's level of emotional development and an adult is whether or not you think it's okay to act on those feelings.

If being a douche was enough of an excuse to kill someone, 50% of the males on any given college campus would just be GONE.

The Larch:Latinwolf: A few people have already claimed he was at fault for daring to text during movie reviews.

He texted in a movie theater, then he laughed at an old man who asked him to stop, and then he threw popcorn at the old man and laughed at him some more when the manager failed to do anything about it.

I'm not saying that he deserved to die, but it's easy to see why someone would come to that conclusion.

You know the police report doesn't mentiog laughter at all. Also he was texting his daughter's daycare provider, not his daughter. She is three and this was a matinee film in the afternoon.

FlashHarry:are you farking kidding me? you don't get to murder people just because you turn 70.

You don't? Why the hell am I hanging on then? I thought it was in the contract!!

Crewmannumber6:My neighbor is a retired cop, and he's never not packing.

I worked with a retired cop once, and that farker was NUTS. If he didn't have some bodies buried somewhere, I'd be surprised. He unnerved me so badly (I have PTSD and he reminded me of my ex) that I had to call the bosses and ask them to be transferred somewhere else. They were not amused. In the course of their embarrassing questions, one of them asked me if I had a gun? If I had a gun--because I must be crazy if I couldn't be around such a nice, sweet, ex-cop, the very definition of stable and upstanding. That farker was packing 24 hours a day! He spent half his time looking for lawbreakers, taking pictures of "suspicious" people, and telling me lurid stories about how crazy and devious everybody else was.

Because cops and ex-cops are the pillars of society, you know. Don't you dare imply that they might not be paragons of virtue.

deanis:mbillips: This probably isn't a popular view, but my theory is that the victim was an entitled prick.

Exhibit A: He's texting to his THREE-YEAR-OLD during the previews. Fark, dude, you got a sitter and went to the movies. Stay in the moment; your precious snowflake won't die from lack of hovering.

Exhibit B: Cranky old man says something about the texting. Dickweed cops an attitude, points out that he's texting with his precious snowflake, so everyone should shut up. Cranky old man goes and tells the manager, who probably says, "It's the trailers, old dude; the house lights aren't even down all the way. Chill." Cranky old man comes back to his seat.

Exhibit C: Words are exchanged. I'm assuming Mr. I Got Shot copped an attitude about the old man narcing on him to the management. That's what you're supposed to do when someone is being a dick at the movies. Turning your farking phone off and leaving it in your pocket is the correct response to someone asking you to stop texting at the movies, not giving them a ration of shiat.

Exhibit D: Guy throws popcorn at an old man. Seriously, who throws popcorn? That's asking for a beatdown.

The old guys' ONE fault was bringing a gun and using it. Everything else is on the shooting victim. This should be a lesson to you gun fondlers out there, to leave the thing at home unless you're actually going somewhere hazardous, because there are pricks out there in the normal course of life that will make you LONG to shoot them.

How farked up is your life if someone throwing popcorn at you makes you "long" to shoot them? Grow up farkwads, have some self control.

That's pretty much standard Southern man reaction. It's not the popcorn; it's the lack of respect for my potential deadliness. Spitting on me would draw the same reaction. We're raised like that. Insult to honor = physical assault.

mbillips:This probably isn't a popular view, but my theory is that the victim was an entitled prick.

Exhibit A: He's texting to his THREE-YEAR-OLD during the previews. Fark, dude, you got a sitter and went to the movies. Stay in the moment; your precious snowflake won't die from lack of hovering.

Exhibit B: Cranky old man says something about the texting. Dickweed cops an attitude, points out that he's texting with his precious snowflake, so everyone should shut up. Cranky old man goes and tells the manager, who probably says, "It's the trailers, old dude; the house lights aren't even down all the way. Chill." Cranky old man comes back to his seat.

Exhibit C: Words are exchanged. I'm assuming Mr. I Got Shot copped an attitude about the old man narcing on him to the management. That's what you're supposed to do when someone is being a dick at the movies. Turning your farking phone off and leaving it in your pocket is the correct response to someone asking you to stop texting at the movies, not giving them a ration of shiat.

Exhibit D: Guy throws popcorn at an old man. Seriously, who throws popcorn? That's asking for a beatdown.

The old guys' ONE fault was bringing a gun and using it. Everything else is on the shooting victim. This should be a lesson to you gun fondlers out there, to leave the thing at home unless you're actually going somewhere hazardous, because there are pricks out there in the normal course of life that will make you LONG to shoot them.

OR he could have went back to the manager and said that dude threw popcorn at him and had the dude kicked out of the theater then laughed at him for missing his date night with his wife. But no he chose to just shoot him instead.

Madbassist1:farking_texan: Texting in a movie theater is everyone's business. Turn it off or take it outside, period.

Not before the movie, buddy. And you don't get to impose your will on me just because you carry a piece. fark you. During the movie it is an issue for management, not you. Mind your own damn business.

This is the problem with the gun culture. It give dudes the illusion of empowerment, by arming them with a deadly weapon. So all of the sudden, what should have been at most, a fist fight, turns into a deadly altercation.

Furthermore, the dead father was texting the babysitter, not his three year-old. The texting was during the previews, and the old bastard was involved in a previous incident at the theater where he intimidated a female who was texting.

vpb:Ivan the Tolerable: down. now that he retired and couldn't just blow off steam by kicking peoples heads in whenever he felt like it, the anger may have just gotten to him until he finally exploded.

No, I think the trail of bodies would be noticeable. Even in Florida.

I know some people like to imagine cops go around killing people like some people chain smoke, but the country would be de-populated if that were actually the case.

Besides, I've seen enough old people hit that point where they start having trouble dealing with the world and they start getting frustrated and angry.

I agree. That's why we should repeal LEOSA and replace it with a national concealed carry system that establishes a training regimen and re-licensing every few years, with special cognitive tests for people old enough to collect social security.

vpb:This guy managed to get through his career without snapping, so it's likely that this was some sort of age related mental deterioration.

or maybe the difference is that when he was on active duty he just got a free pass for all of the people he beat down. now that he retired and couldn't just blow off steam by kicking peoples heads in whenever he felt like it, the anger may have just gotten to him until he finally exploded.

Some Coke Drinking Guy:Actually no, stand your ground only works, if it is reasonable for the person to believe his life is in danger, and you are lawfully about your business. Throwing a tub of popcorn would not be reasonable.

A guy is pulling up to the Taco Bell drive-thru window in his truck. Some guy walks in front of you waving a dog leash but you think it's a metal pipe. So you shoot him in the chest. You claim "stand your ground." Do you go free?

A guy steals something from you so you chase him for over a block. He swings a bag of radios at you so you stab him to death. You claim "stand your ground." Do you go free?

There's a loud party going on in the garage next door. So you call the cops to complain and when the cops show up, a bunch of them run to try to not get busted and one tries to hide on your porch. So you grab your gun, go out there and find an unarmed, drunk black 20 year old kid hiding from the cops. He takes a step toward you, so you shoot him once in the chest, killing him. You claim "stand your ground." Do you go free?

You notice someone is robbing your neighbor. So you call 911. 911 says cops are on the way, so don't worry and don't do anything. You tell the 911 operator the cops better hurry up because you've got a shotgun and you're not going to let them go. A few more things are said before you tell the 911 operator "You want to make a bet? I'm going to kill them... well here it goes, buddy. You hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going." The last thing the 911 operator hears is "Move, you're dead" before the cops show up and find two victims shot in the back. You claim "stand your ground." Do you go free?

Why yes, in all of these cases, you my good sir were simply protecting yourself when your life was in imminent danger. Sure, mistaking a dog leash for a metal pipe and thinking either one of those puts your life in immediate danger while you are in a truck and he is in front of your truck is standing your ground, but mistaking popcorn for something else is crazy!

farking_texan:1. Turn off your freaking cell phone in the theater.2. Turn off your freaking cell phone in the theater.3. Checking up on your precious snowflake doesn't give you a valid excuse to ruin the moviegoing experience for other people. Take it outside.4. Turn off your freaking cell phone in the theater.5. A grown-ass man was throwing popcorn at someone who was asking him to act in a civilzed manner in a public place? Douchenozzle. Not deserving of death, but douchenozzle.6. A grown-ass man was throwing popcorn at someone who was asking him to act in a civilized manner in a public place. Douchenozzle.

Serious Black:Dimensio: This incident is just another example of why "shall issue" concealed weapons permit statutes need to be repealed. The only people who should be allowed to legally carry firearms in public are law enforcement, active and retired.

I don't remember when I did it, but I faved you as "Loves Guns" some time ago. Nice troll. 8/10.

Oh, it's not a troll, it's a straw-man. Sometimes the differences are subtle.

Dimensio:Generation_D: Trivia Jockey: vpb: The problem is that all he has to do is claim that he was afraid and he is good. It doesn't matter if he actually had a reason to be afraid, it just matters that he was.

That's not true. Although I hate SYG, it doesn't just require a subjective feeling of fear. It requires a showing of reasonableness.

"Here's the thing," said Bob Dekle, legal skills professor at Levin. "It's not whether or not you're in fear. If the standard about shooting were fear that would give cowards carte blanche. The question is was there reasonable fear, was the fear reasonable?"

Yeah, but that's the logic Invader Zimm used when the Scary Black Kid was Walking and Talking on the Cell Phone in a threatening manner, wearing a hoodie and carrying skittles.

You are correct. That Mr. Zimmerman also reported being pinned to the ground and repeatedly punched in the face by Mr. Martin was in no way a part of his legal defense.

Yes, making up multiple lies was part of his defense, not just one lie. Let's be fair.

Actually no, stand your ground only works, if it is reasonable for the person to believe his life is in danger, and you are lawfully about your business. Throwing a tub of popcorn would not be reasonable.

This guy being an ex-cop, also actually works against him. It will be assumed that he has a higher level of training and restraint. IE, he was trained to fight with his fist, and could be reasonably expected to defend himself, without using a firearm, unless the other guy was built like a heavyweight boxer, and the ex-cop had some medical condition that would make a prolonged fight a life threatening affair for himself.

Happen to be an ex-Florida cop myself. Still haven't shot anyone in a movie theater, yet.

factoryconnection:Generation_D: Yeah, but that's the logic Invader Zimm used when the Scary Black Kid was Walking and Talking on the Cell Phone in a threatening manner, wearing a hoodie and carrying skittles.

That worked because (a) Zimm was injured by Trayvon Martin and (b) the other witness in that case was a corpse.

In this case you have the injured wife, the cop's wife, the off-duty sheriff that disarmed the shooter, the nurses that tried to save the victim's life, et cetera. The lawyer is using "Stand Your Ground" because it is all he's got to defend his crazy client that shoots people in movie theaters.

Also victim is a clean-cut white guy. That really doesn't help the defense's case. Maybe if he had some tattoos or a long hair they'd have a case.

Generation_D:Trivia Jockey: vpb: The problem is that all he has to do is claim that he was afraid and he is good. It doesn't matter if he actually had a reason to be afraid, it just matters that he was.

That's not true. Although I hate SYG, it doesn't just require a subjective feeling of fear. It requires a showing of reasonableness.

"Here's the thing," said Bob Dekle, legal skills professor at Levin. "It's not whether or not you're in fear. If the standard about shooting were fear that would give cowards carte blanche. The question is was there reasonable fear, was the fear reasonable?"

Yeah, but that's the logic Invader Zimm used when the Scary Black Kid was Walking and Talking on the Cell Phone in a threatening manner, wearing a hoodie and carrying skittles.

You are correct. That Mr. Zimmerman also reported being pinned to the ground and repeatedly punched in the face by Mr. Martin was in no way a part of his legal defense.

Nabb1:Dimensio: This incident is just another example of why "shall issue" concealed weapons permit statutes need to be repealed. The only people who should be allowed to legally carry firearms in public are law enforcement, active and retired.

FreudulentSplit:Dimensio: As I am certain that you will be able to demonstrate by showing that concealed weapons permit holders in "shall issue" states commit violent crime at a rate higher than that of the general populace.

So you're in favor of changing the law such that the CDC and/or ATF can start keeping stats and studying gun crime, because the gun lobby got specific wording instituted that seriously hampers the federal government from doing that. That way we could confirm or refute this canard.

As it is, in this case, does it matter? I don't think it does, and as you've pointed out, shall issue doesn't apply here, but it seems daft to me, nonetheless. As does stand your ground. And knowing several cops and former cops, the ones that would carry probably shouldn't, and ones that won't probably should, much like those that seek elected office are the people who least deserve it.

There is nothing preventing either from keeping or studying those stats on conceal carry permit holders. CDC doesn't get funding to do so, but they can study if they want. Or they could start by looking at states that release that information:

Dimensio:As I am certain that you will be able to demonstrate by showing that concealed weapons permit holders in "shall issue" states commit violent crime at a rate higher than that of the general populace.

So you're in favor of changing the law such that the CDC and/or ATF can start keeping stats and studying gun crime, because the gun lobby got specific wording instituted that seriously hampers the federal government from doing that. That way we could confirm or refute this canard.

As it is, in this case, does it matter? I don't think it does, and as you've pointed out, shall issue doesn't apply here, but it seems daft to me, nonetheless. As does stand your ground. And knowing several cops and former cops, the ones that would carry probably shouldn't, and ones that won't probably should, much like those that seek elected office are the people who least deserve it.

fnordfocus:In other word, if I don't live in these states, I have no right to keep a retired Officer out of my house if he's packing?

Lovely.

Well, you can order anyone out of your house for any reason, as long as they are not LEOs who have a warrant to be in your house and they're not actively pursuing some criminal in a time-sensitive emergency situation. You can forbid all others (including LEOs who don't have LEO-related business) from being there; but you can't forbid LEOSA-compliant people from carrying their weapons. Since you can tell them to leave anyway, the LEOSA thing is probably not meaningful in a private residence. Also, you can't forbid your spouse or renter-with-a-lease from being in the house unless you have a court order or you're my cousins shiatstain ex-husband who may or may not die a slow, painful death. (Don't worry; I'm not going to do it. The waiting list is too long).

With the exceptoin of LEOs on LEO business with proper pieces of paper, that list of states is where LEOSA-compliant people who are not on official LEO duty still must adhere to proprietors' No-CCW policies. But in the rest of the states, you can always go with the same thing they do with blah people: "this guy is creating a nuisance; these assholes always get away with it, and I need you to come arrest him." It's just that "nuisance" is subjective, whereas the existence of a gun in a location where it's explicitly and legally prohibited is objective.

BTW: you can order someone out of your house even if they're in a protected class, and even if your reason is, "I don't like THOSE people." Your life experiences will be less interesting, but you can do that. I won't comment on subtleties such as people you employ to butter the garden or mow the kids; others can talk passionately about such subjects.

I am also not going to hazard any guess about people with CCW permits who are neither LEO nor former LEO; that path leads to madness. In general, though, it seems to me that someone with a CCW permit who somehow lets you find out that they have a CCW are not following the whole "C" part of CCW, and I'd want to red shift from them. Responsible people with CCW permits would be the people you don't know have CCWs, and I'd trust them. So, there you have it: as a default, I trust friends to exercise good judgment regarding important things such as their handling of guns, and in general, I trust random strangers not to shoot me. I may be wrong at the wrong time, but the alternative is to live in a state of constant paranoia. That way also leads to madness.

// In my opinion, the two major groups of people in the US can be summed up thusly: one group fears that everyone is as mean, selfish and bitter as they themselves are, and one group hopes that everyone is as hopeful and compassionate as they themselves are. I could be wrong, though; wouldn't be the first time.

spiderpaz:Why are there so many piss-pants cowards out there that are so afraid of a "beat-down" that they want to keep their finger on a hair trigger all the time? It must be an awful life to walk around terrified of everyone around you all the time. People like you just need to be taken outside and have the crap kicked out of them one time just to show you that it's not the end of the world ... it's not worth being afraid all the damn time.

A) You first.

B) Beatings quite often do result in death. This chance is increased if the attacker is younger and stronger and the victim is 70 years old.

Click Click D'oh:Kahabut: Damn, that is some REALLY EXCELLENT bait and switching going on there.

Comparing a daylight parade to a dark night on a mostly deserted street. Fine work there kiddo.

Okie dokie then Fark Legal Eagle. What part of the Florida law allows the use of force or lethal force against a person walking in proximity to you that has made no overt threats through word or act?

Oh wait none? Oh wait, that would be illegal?

Then it can't be the rational and predicted outcome of the action.

he wasnt walking in proximity he was clearly jogging towards him. You can hear him out of breathe and that is why the kid ran. He wasnt trying to hid the fact that he was going straight for the kid. Hell he even said he was following him on the 911 call. Which is why they advised him not too.

Click Click D'oh:scroufus: I said he should have been found guilty of manslaughter but the DA failed horribly at proving that.

Of course the DA failed horribly at proving it. Because manslaughter doesn't fit. In order to fit, you would have to maintain that a reasonable person would think it logical and rational to believe that walking behind a person will logical progresses to you shooting them as a normal chain of events.

Since this:

[25.media.tumblr.com image 500x339]

...Doesn't result in mass casualties by gunfire, the assumption that walking near another person concludes in gunfire must be wrong.

The lethal chain of events started with Martins aggression. Manslaughter isn't the appropriate charge.

Damn, that is some REALLY EXCELLENT bait and switching going on there.

Comparing a daylight parade to a dark night on a mostly deserted street. Fine work there kiddo.

scroufus:I said he should have been found guilty of manslaughter but the DA failed horribly at proving that.

Of course the DA failed horribly at proving it. Because manslaughter doesn't fit. In order to fit, you would have to maintain that a reasonable person would think it logical and rational to believe that walking behind a person will logical progresses to you shooting them as a normal chain of events.

Since this:

...Doesn't result in mass casualties by gunfire, the assumption that walking near another person concludes in gunfire must be wrong.

The lethal chain of events started with Martins aggression. Manslaughter isn't the appropriate charge.

As I am certain that you will be able to demonstrate by showing that concealed weapons permit holders in "shall issue" states commit violent crime at a rate higher than that of the general populace.

That's a wonderful research question. And since "shall issue" started to become common after Congress blocked research into firearm violence, we need to study it.But why are you limiting your comparison to a small subset of concealed carriers?Is is because real research shows that when a higher percentage of the population is armed, there are higher rates of firearm homicide and suicide?

Yawn. 60% of the population of Wyoming is armed, vs Gun free Maryland at 22%.

In the same exact way that your business can't restrict access based on race/creed/etc, it also can't restrict perfectly legal gun carrying, particularly when it's a cop carrying the gun. (retired or otherwise)

Oh sure, you can say no guns. You can even have people thrown out if you see them with a gun. But it's not "illegal" unless the DA press charges, and can you guess how likely that is?

Egoy3k:Kahabut: DROxINxTHExWIND: I told you that it would happen. They need to test the father for marijuana.

How much you want to bet that they can't find any pictures of him doing illegal drugs, holding illegal firearms, and I'm also willing to bet he wasn't in possession of stolen goods.

Good try though. Racist.

Is it not illegal to concealed carry in an establishment that has a no firearms policy? Doesn't that make the gun in the theater illegal?

You obviously aren't tracking the conversation all that well. We were talking about the father that got shot.

As to the gun in the theater, believe it or not, no it's not illegal. Retired police have special "privileges" when it comes to things like this. The exact legality of which can only be worked out by 2 lawyers, a judge and the DA. (so take a wild guess how that is going to turn out)

It is not against the law to walk around at 7pm with a hood on on a friday night. Even children know that.

So we agree, no crime was committed until Martin assaulted Zimmerman.

He really shouldn't have done that. It got him killed.

That is why I said it was manslaughter. Not murder. Zimzams actions led to that altercation. He got the car he pursued Martin.

And he yielded and was forced to use deadly force in order to stop a continued assault, that's called self defense (though in some states there are still civil liabilities)

And if you wanna play the if and buts game, if the resource officer had actually done his job rather than falsifying police reports; Martin would simply be prisoner XXXXX for possession of stolen property. Assuming of course he didn't start a fight w/ a bunch of Hispanics and get shanked in shower

The cop had nothing to do with this. It is not Zimzams job to pursue people he thinks committed a crime. That is not how neighborhood watches work.

That is why I said it was manslaughter. Not murder. Zimzams actions led to that altercation. He got the car he pursued Martin.

But anyone has the right to walk around at seven in the evening. You said so yourself.

It's not at all like your drunk driving comparison, because that's illegal. Zimmerman did nothing illegal, by your own reasoning. The first illegal act that night was Martin assaulting Zimmerman. Martin's friend said he wasn't trying to kill Zimmerman, only give him "whoop-ass," but Zimmerman had no way of knowing that the guy who attacked him would stop at a beating. He was entirely justified in defending himself.

If you think you shouldn't follow people for just walking around the neighborhood, surely you can see how attacking someone walking around the same neighborhood is wrong.

While ill give you my drunk driving comparison as flaky. I can not agree with you on the latter. He was clearly pursuing him because he believed the kid to be a criminal. Its on the 911 calls. So to that kid it could have been fight or flight. I dont know about you but if i start running and some one starts running after me then they are not there just to walk around the neighborhood.

Dimensio:scroufus: Dimensio: Unless Mr. Zimmerman's actions at any time legally justified or could be construed to have reasonably provoked a physical assault on his person by Mr. Martin, Mr. Zimmerman's use of deadly force against Mr. Martin cannot be construed as criminal.

you mean like chasing after him?

Both Mr. Martin and Mr. Zimmerman had a "right to be" outdoors in the neighborhood. As such, Mr. Zimmerman's act of following Mr. Martin (which was not known to be occurring at the time of Mr. Martin's attack) was not itself justification for a physical attack.

So someone following you wouldnt freak you out? So people will run to safe place if they think some one is chasing after them some will stand and fight. Yes they both had a right to be outside but soon as he pursued after Martin it changed things. That action right there is where it all changed. We can go back and forth on what ifs but that single factual event of him leaving his car and going towards martin is what changed it all.

In my opinion Zimzam should be behind bars for manslaughter. In my opinion justice failed that kid and his family. And its my opinion, just like assholes, everyone gots them and everyone is entitled to them. You dont have to agree with it and I dont have to agree with people thinking zimzam did nothing wrong. Its as simple as that.

Dimensio:Unless Mr. Zimmerman's actions at any time legally justified or could be construed to have reasonably provoked a physical assault on his person by Mr. Martin, Mr. Zimmerman's use of deadly force against Mr. Martin cannot be construed as criminal.

If I went out drinking crashed my car and killed someone that is manslaughter for my poor choices NOT the other person fault for choosing to drive at the same time as a drunk. Because if I hadnt made the choice first that person wouldnt have been killed. Same goes for Zimzam IF he had not did what he did first the kid would have never confronted him.

You're ignoring the fact that Martin chose to assault someone. That led to his death at least as much (if not more so) than anything Zimmerman did prior to Martin confronting him.

I am not ignoring it. I am saying that if Zimzam never got out his car and followed someone running in the dark with a hood and just reported it like a neighbor hood watch is suppose then Martin wouldnt have ever assaulted him that night. Clearly from the 911 call the kid did not start running till Zimzam got out of his car. Thats when he reported that he is running and you can hear the door alarm go off and zimzam started to pursue. That is when the 911 dispatcher told zimzam dont do that. Which he did but he should have never pursued him in the first place. It was not warranted for him to pursue. There were no gunshots heard nor evidence of a crime being committed. I dont know why he pursued but he shouldnt have and yes that is hindsight but because of his actions it lead to that confrontation that ended in a kids death. His actions started it not the other way around. It is not against the law to walk around at 7pm with a hood on on a friday night. Even children know that.

Yes you are

At no point are you allowed to continue to physically assault somebody who has yielded even if they started the fight. The second they give up you are now the instigator in a separate incident if you choice to continue the fight.

moike:crzybtch: Well now that you so KINDLY asked, the only time I do go to a movie is to take a 9 year old kid whose mom died of ovarian cancer. But since you are adamant about things, why not go out and punch an old lady for no reason then go home and kick your dog Mr. Sunshine..

I might just do that...

But you should say positive, just think of all the money you're saving not buying that third ticket and extra crap at the concession stand.

I sincerely wish you were here to say that to my face. But at least it shows the fark world the content of your character, or should I say the lack of it. What a bitter petty person you are to feel the need to poke fun at someone who watched someone they love being destroyed by cancer. Nice work douchebag.

CrazyCracka420:Fark It: CrazyCracka420: Generation_D: It appears if you are a cop, or a wannabe cop, Florida is your paradise these days.

All you need is

1) A gun

2) An attitude

The shooting gallery is open, time to go hunting!

Note: fans of civilization that doesn't resemble Beirut in the 1980s, Somalia today or perhaps a very populated Old West, might want to just skip Florida entirely.

Let the inbreds and the senile battle it out.

Actually the "Wild West" had stricter gun control laws, and a lot less firearm deaths (at least that they documented, I suspect some people get killed and were buried in the desert without a trace...so the numbers may be skewed). I read that the most firearm deaths in any year, was 4 in Tombstone, the year of the OK Corral gun fight. Most frontier towns averaged 2 firearm deaths a year (again, this is something I read, so take with a grain of salt unless you want to do your own research).

How big was the average frontier town?

Good point, even when Tombstone was at it's most populist of 15,000-20,000 people (which looks like one of the bigger frontier towns), 2 murders would be about .0001% of the population. When Murderapolis had it's most murders (97 in 1995) if it had a population of 370,000, it would have been .0002% of the population. So very similar, however most frontier towns it looks like had under 2000 people, so 2 murders a year would be a lot more (per capita) than what we have now in most places.

My point was that there was rampant murders with firearms in the Wild West like some people have been led to believe.

Yet the frontier towns in Canada didn't have the same levels of gun violence, even though the guns were still there. The difference as I understand it was that in Canada, law enforcement wasn't left to the local population, but was the first institution to arrive in the frontier towns alongside with banks.

The point being, the idea that the US culture of gun violence originated in the Wild West is a myth, it wasn't as violent or unpredictable as popular fiction would have you believe.

Mr.BobDobalita:scroufus: Mr.BobDobalita:LoL.. you just talked in a huge circle. THe point of my post was that anyone can say the same thing about TM as you say about GZ. "He shouldn't have been there so it was his fault". Well that goes for BOTH of them.Look, I'm not saying GZ is some saint... but I can put myself in his shoes. I've been over to the neighbor's house when I couldn't reach them on the cell phone when I saw a plain white van back in behind their house and people going in and out... I went over and I saw that it was a guy working on his wood floors... are you suggesting that I would be irresponsible and it would be partly my fault if the guy attacked me and I shot him dead?Where I come from, you're a good neighbor and check those things out. The cops won't come out for that kind of thing and you shouldn't bother them with it anyway.Anyways, my point was that in this case, it seems like mistakes were made on BOTH sides... GZ and TM... but the bottom line is no matter how much you want him to have been convicted of a crime, HE COMMITTED NO CRIME and was NOT GUILTY. Sorry. That's the way the cookie crumbles

Dont see how I talked in circles. This event did not happen in a house. But you are making a hypothetical situation about visiting a house. In the situation you painted not only did you not follow someone to that house to make sure no crime was committed but you also did not call 911 to let the police know. Thieves steal things all the time. Its not worth your life for someone elses stuff nor even you own items. In my mind Zimzam is and was guilty of man slaughter. No one can disprove him of being "in fear of his life" because no one was there or in those shoes. However he should have not followed He got the the description of the person and phoned it in. He could have notified his neighbors the next day and all them could have called the police to request added patrols of the neighborhood. That is hindsight though. Zimzam ...

Yea he should have gotten manslaughter. If I go out drinking get in a car and kill someone that is manslaughter for my poor choices. Zimzam made poor choices that ended in the death of a kid. The Judge was strongly hinting to the Jury about manslaughter chargers. I just dont think they understood them.

Deathfrogg:lennavan: Deathfrogg: People rarely "just snap". This murder comes from a lifetime of being a cop who had felt entitled to "respect" based on the presence of a badge and the corresponding license to kill that comes with it, and then being disrespected for being the self-appointed "law of the theater". This guy was building up to something like this, probably for years.

I don't know that being a cop had anything to do with it. As in, I don't think being a cop makes you a person entitled to want respect, rather I think being the kinda person who wants to be entitled to respect makes you want to be a cop.

/my own wild speculation

You've never encountered a cop with a hangover or an itchy ass or a leftover high school toughguy attitude have you.

I think you misread what I'm saying here. I'm telling you it's the personality that's relevant, not the occupation. Had this ex-cop been instead an ex-something else, his underlying personality is the same. Whether the leftover high school tough guy becomes a cop, or a grocery store clerk, either way I think he still shoots this guy for throwing popcorn.

Deathfrogg:lennavan: Deathfrogg: People rarely "just snap". This murder comes from a lifetime of being a cop who had felt entitled to "respect" based on the presence of a badge and the corresponding license to kill that comes with it, and then being disrespected for being the self-appointed "law of the theater". This guy was building up to something like this, probably for years.

I don't know that being a cop had anything to do with it. As in, I don't think being a cop makes you a person entitled to want respect, rather I think being the kinda person who wants to be entitled to respect makes you want to be a cop.

/my own wild speculation

You've never encountered a cop with a hangover or an itchy ass or a leftover high school toughguy attitude have you.

There's quite a bit of evidence that he's correct, though I don't have the citations handy. Cops don't become assholes, assholes become cops.

As for texting, it's annoying, but a lot less annoying than many things that go on in a theater. I have friends who are EMTs or doctors. Sometimes they get a text during the movie. They need to read it, make a one word reply, and sometimes leave. I don't think they should be forced to not be able to go to movies, and it's a lot less disruption than leaving the theater and coming back every time they got a text.

If I saw somebody who texted during a movie, I'd put it in the same category as somebody opening a box of candy or blowing their nose. Not something worth getting bothered by if it's quick and rare.

redmid17:Oh I'm sure he didn't intend on shooting the guy. We both agree on that. I'm just saying a crime of passion theoretically requires a normal state of mind transformed instantly into a bling rage. The guy might have worked up to a blind rage but he was clearly angry before he got there.

Deathfrogg:lennavan: Deathfrogg: People rarely "just snap". This murder comes from a lifetime of being a cop who had felt entitled to "respect" based on the presence of a badge and the corresponding license to kill that comes with it, and then being disrespected for being the self-appointed "law of the theater". This guy was building up to something like this, probably for years.

I don't know that being a cop had anything to do with it. As in, I don't think being a cop makes you a person entitled to want respect, rather I think being the kinda person who wants to be entitled to respect makes you want to be a cop.

/my own wild speculation

You've never encountered a cop with a hangover or an itchy ass or a leftover high school toughguy attitude have you.

Pathman:redmid17: Pathman: redmid17: Crime of passion is more or less an insanity defense. The suddenness of the rage is the critical aspect.

which i would argue probably applies here...not a defense in any way, mind you, to get him off - but more to establish motive. i doubt the dude was calm-cool-collect about it. i suspect he just snapped....even if he did go get the car i tihnk he was seeing red more than blue. the entire discussion started because the term "cold-blooded" was used.

maybe that's exactly what he is...i think he's just a hateful nut who snapped. either way i guess it doesn't matter.

I don't think you can really argue that. He was asked the texter to stop. He tried to get a manager and couldn't. People in the article said he came back angry. They argued for several more minutes. Texter through popcorn at him, and then he shot the guy. That's pretty much the opposite of sudden.

that's all true. i'm just saying maybe he didn't intend to shoot that guy until the point when he lost it and shot the guy.you know what i mean?

Oh I'm sure he didn't intend on shooting the guy. We both agree on that. I'm just saying a crime of passion theoretically requires a normal state of mind transformed instantly into a bling rage. The guy might have worked up to a blind rage but he was clearly angry before he got there.

lennavan:Deathfrogg: People rarely "just snap". This murder comes from a lifetime of being a cop who had felt entitled to "respect" based on the presence of a badge and the corresponding license to kill that comes with it, and then being disrespected for being the self-appointed "law of the theater". This guy was building up to something like this, probably for years.

I don't know that being a cop had anything to do with it. As in, I don't think being a cop makes you a person entitled to want respect, rather I think being the kinda person who wants to be entitled to respect makes you want to be a cop.

/my own wild speculation

You've never encountered a cop with a hangover or an itchy ass or a leftover high school toughguy attitude have you.

Pathman:redmid17: Crime of passion is more or less an insanity defense. The suddenness of the rage is the critical aspect.

which i would argue probably applies here...not a defense in any way, mind you, to get him off - but more to establish motive. i doubt the dude was calm-cool-collect about it. i suspect he just snapped....even if he did go get the car i tihnk he was seeing red more than blue. the entire discussion started because the term "cold-blooded" was used.

maybe that's exactly what he is...i think he's just a hateful nut who snapped. either way i guess it doesn't matter.

People rarely "just snap". This murder comes from a lifetime of being a cop who had felt entitled to "respect" based on the presence of a badge and the corresponding license to kill that comes with it, and then being disrespected for being the self-appointed "law of the theater". This guy was building up to something like this, probably for years.

What he was, was a demented, elderly self-entitled prick with a chip on his shoulder and a handgun in his pocket that he was itching to use. He's no different from the WW1 Vet I used to live next door to when I was a kid, who would chase the neighborhood kids away from his yard with a shovel every time they got too close to his fence. If a ball or a frisbee went over that fence, it was flat out gone, and every kid who lived within four blocks knew it.

Dimensio:Do you suggest repealing all laws justifying the use of deadly force, and thus prohibiting the use of deadly force at any time, regardless of circumstance, merely because an individual who commits homicide may attempt to reference those laws as part of their defense regardless of circumstance or applicability?

Nobody's saying that, and you know it.

The problem with Stand Your Ground is that it removes the obligation to retreat until such time as deadly force is necessary, which makes the margin between "verbal altercation" and "second-degree murder" much thinner. It also makes it easier for the police to forgo opening an investigation in cases that appear to be self-defense. That's why Zimmerman wasn't investigated for murder until weeks after he killed Trayvon Martin.

Not to mention that this probably wouldn't even be a problem were there not so many paranoid and legalistically pedantic gun owners in this country.

I never said he should have been home because of his age or because of a curfew or something. If he was "being stalked" or "scared of the creepy ass cracker" he should have went to his home that was 20 seconds away. He should have called the police. He should have called his father. He, however was NOT scared. He said as much to Dee Dee. He told her he wasnt' going to run. People keep saying "GZ shouldn't have been out of his car" but fail to put any responsibility on TM for not going to his house or getting help if he supposedly was afraid. It's because he wasnt' afraid and he confronted GZ.And I"m 6' 175lbs. I -guarantee- if I hit you in the face you would know and it would hurt. It's not like he was some 100lb 13 year old. He was FULL GROWN MAN SIZED.

You are telling me a kid didnt make the right choice? Like that never happens? He was a kid after all. You can say full grown man sized all you want but he was still a kid. He wasnt old enough to enlist not old enough to vote not old enough to date a woman that is past 20. That makes him a kid. You putting responsibility on a 17 year old is not only dumb but just plain retarded. Very few teenagers are responsible. Would you run if someone kept messing with you? He was probably taught to handle your business if someone if messing with you. And you handle it with your fist not a gun. I like how people say about him being grown man sized. Well Zimzam is a grown man and he should have been able to fight some one who is grown man sized and if you lose you lose. I highly doubt a 17 year old kid could beat a man to death bare handed. Yea any person that clocks you right in the face you are gonna feel it. You can say oh he should have just went home same goes for zimzam he should have just stayed in his car. Zimzam is an Adult and should have known better. That was not his job to go and follow someone that he suspect is a criminal because you are suppose to be innocent until proven guilty. Was zimzam in his mind in fear of his life during that fight? Yea possibly but he should have at least got manslaughter because if he would have never got out his car it would have never happened. He started it not the kid. The judge even strongly hinted at that.

Mr.BobDobalita:scroufus: justtray: Latinwolf: You mean like all those GZ supporters who claimed that Martin was up to no good that night, ready to do a burglary?

I think he meant the people that said things like, "GZ stalked and murdered that kid," despite only evidence to the contrary.

Since GZ didn't have to prove anything, it really didn't matter at all what Martin's motives were or what he was doing. Only the actions that he took that led to his lawful death.

But if I remember your rage from those threads, I'm pretty sure you don't want to dig this back up right now. It's not a winning proposition for you.

You mean Zimzam wasnt told by 911 dispatchers not to follow him and to stay in his car and wait for police? I forgot that didnt happen. If he would have listen to them then Martin would have had to deal with the police instead of being shot because Zimzam couldnt beat up a 17 year old kid.

You can take that stance... but by the EXACT same token, there is a PROVEN ~4 minute gap of time between when GZ loses sight of TM and when the attack began. Perhaps GZ shouldn't have exited his vehicle, but TM sure as hell should have BEEN AT HOME. He had ~4 minutes to cover 150 yds which should have taken him 20 seconds. If GZ was up to no good by being out of the vehicle, TM was up to no good by hiding and waiting for GZ.

Or hiding from GZ, because GZ was acting like a crazy stalker who might chase someone down and kill them....

serial_crusher:Mr.BobDobalita: Looks like 13 killings (charges for manslaughter, murder, etc...) with 5 of those being dismissed or found not guilty. That leaves 8 people convicted of homicide or having pending charges for homicide that had a CPL.... out of almost 426k.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does that not translate to a murder rate of approximately 2 out of 100k population?

Refer to bolded part for your correction. You've written off people as guilty before they have been proven as such. It's not uncommon for somebody who defends himself to be charged with homicide and then acquitted.

I mean, those 8 people might turn out to all be guilty, but your methodology is flawed.

You are right, and I knew that, but I decided to include them because it would only make the numbers for my argument LOWER if they were acquitted. I was being conservative with the figures with the understanding that they could actually be even MORE in my favor after the conclusion of legal proceedings.

Pathman:you think that's what happened? my take is that he was already fuming mad, the two of them were fighting and then the thrown popcorn put him over the edge.

blind rage kind of precludes cold-blooded, doesn't it?

I know compuction or clemency are big words so let's break them down. Compuction:guilt, clemency:mercy; That old man had no consideration, guilt, or mercy when he killed that guy. Yeah I'm sure he was pissed but a pissed off person doesn't pull out a gun and kill someone. If you are that pissed that you walk out to do whatever and then come back and sit right behind the person that first pissed you off. Then that issue is with you. He could have moved seats but choose not to.

Jim from Saint Paul:Calling someone a douche nozzle is generally considered to be a stament of dislike. You did it in a manner that was quite emphatic. Indeed on the Welcome to Fark. I am enjoying the internet fighting today.

You're still having problems with reading comprehension, I see. The douchenozzle comment was in reference to the idiotic popcorn throwing. You're right, I do not like it when people escalate a verbal disagreement into a physicial confrontation. Throwing popcorn at another adult during the course of a disagreement makes you a douchenozzle.

jst3p:yakmans_dad: The very fact that some people -- and they are not few -- find texting an "understandable" factor in murdering someone is proof that our society has become rotten to the core.

The other day we were skiing and my son (8) kicked my stepson (10) while we were at lunch. It wasn't a "hard" kick, but ski boots hurt and require more momentum to get moving than the 8 year old realized and inflicted a decent amount of pain. My son kicked him because he kept calling him names like stupid and jerk. My stepson likes to agitate people.

So clearly my son had a consequence because he was in the wrong, but I pulled my stepson aside and said told him:

"You could learn something from this too. You aren't in trouble but you are in pain. He shouldn't have kicked you but sometimes when people get angry they lash out. I am not saying he was right to kick you, but if you piss people off you might get kicked."

What kind of douche throws popcorn at strangers?

/in this case the dead kind.

your point is not lost on me and i think that was a good lesson you tried to teach your kid. however we don't know all the facts here, do we?

sounds like the two were shouting at each other and the shooter was just as much in this guys face. the popcorn throwing might have been a reaction to the shooter's unmetered aggression.

Is it hard to imagine that someone who could shoot someone else over this kind of thing might also have been overreacting in the moments leading up to the shooting itself?

seems to me the shooting OR the thrown popcorn could be fit into your example of dealing with your kids...

it could of course be that one hot-head throw popcorn and the other fired a gunor it could be that the shooter really felt like this guy was going to hurt him.or it could be that the pop-corn thrower just reacted (albeit poorly) to be berated by a nutbag over a fairly minor thing and said nutbag blew up.

JesusJuice:One fewer asshole in the world ruining movies for everyone. Nothing of value was lost and the cop reserved a medal.

Dude you're late. If your going to do this you have to show up early or almost nobody will see it.

See this guy here?

Dimensio:This incident is just another example of why "shall issue" concealed weapons permit statutes need to be repealed. The only people who should be allowed to legally carry firearms in public are law enforcement, active and retired.

He showed up within 10 post AAAAND got a dozen hits, farking hat tip of the ol fedora to him. "Better late than never" works for periods during pregnancy scares and airlift rescues at sea, not here.

Mr.BobDobalita:Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mr.BobDobalita: FACT: CPL HOLDERS ARE SOME OF THE MOST LAW ABIDING PEOPLE. PERIOD.

Just like this guy. Til he wasn't .

Ummm.. yeah, just like ANYONE.. 'til they aren't... wow, you have a lot of derp.

My citations and statistics PROVE that CPL holders are at least half as likely to kill someone. So either you are willfully ignorant, or just trolling. Which is it?

He's also not the typical CCW permit holder. He's a former LEO. Not they he didn't receive training comparable and probably exceeding what most CCW permit holders go through, but it's not drawing from the same pool of people (become cop vs get ccw permit). Cops and former cops are also probably a little more likely to get some leeway from DAs and other cops in incidents that might cause revocation of that privilege.

walktoanarcade:redmid17: walktoanarcade: Not making excuses for super cop, but now that we're on the subject, there's no reason you should be texting in a theater.And yes, previews count. The previews are part of the experience, that's why they dim the lights at that time.

The necessity of your texts in the daylight are questionable as it is, and activating the bright lights inside a darkened theater is rude and inconsiderate to others trying to lose themselves in the experience. Traditionally previews provide the first glimpses of films that may later become cherished classics, and scores of people still enjoy them.

You think you're so important that you can't put away your phone for 1 1/2 to 2 hours?

8/10. Loved the use of cherished and scores of people.

I meant every word. And yes, some people still cherish the little things in life, like previews of new movies without some dolt shining distracting lights in their peripheral vision or worse, loudly obnoxious ring tones stomping on the soundtrack.

Do they cherish the people still coming into the theater and walking down aisles while saying "Excuse me" to every person they pass? I know people who like to watch the previews. I very seriously doubt anyone in their right mind "cherishes" them. It's like being mad at someone who's texting or talking to someone on a parked plane because one cherishes flying.

CrazyCracka420:Actually the "Wild West" had stricter gun control laws, and a lot less firearm deaths (at least that they documented, I suspect some people get killed and were buried in the desert without a trace...so the numbers may be skewed). I read that the most firearm deaths in any year, was 4 in Tombstone, the year of the OK Corral gun fight.

4 firearm deaths in Tombstone (max population of 14k, likely around 1886) is a per capita rate around that of modern Philadelphia.

Dimensio:This incident is just another example of why "shall issue" concealed weapons permit statutes need to be repealed. The only people who should be allowed to legally carry firearms in public are law enforcement, active and retired.

wow. you win the thread. how was it not immediately obvious that you were joking?people love to get enraged... it's the same gene that leads people like this dude to shoot someone over texting and talking back.

Latinwolf:dazed420: The Larch: Latinwolf: A few people have already claimed he was at fault for daring to text during movie reviews.

He texted in a movie theater, then he laughed at an old man who asked him to stop, and then he threw popcorn at the old man and laughed at him some more when the manager failed to do anything about it.

I'm not saying that he deserved to die, but it's easy to see why someone would come to that conclusion.

Where in the hell are you getting your misinformation. It clearly stated he was texting during previews. During previews a lot of times the lights are still on in the theater.

At no point did the article say that the manager or usher came and spoke to the texter, hence why the texter is quoted as saying "What did you go and tell on me when?" When the old man came back, witnesses stated, alone and agitated, most likely because no one is going to stop a texter during previews.

Reading comprehension is a skill taught in elementary school perhaps you need to go back.

I think it's more like he's making up stuff in an attempt to justify his opinion.

There was a lof of that in the Zimmerman threads too. It was like thousands of FARKers were there and saw it all go down and could tell you exactly how it happend but did nothing to stop it. Then all the proof came out and it didnt matter because people were attached to their made up version of events by then. You can see that some of them are still pushing it in this thread.

Looks like 13 killings (charges for manslaughter, murder, etc...) with 5 of those being dismissed or found not guilty. That leaves 8 people convicted of homicide or having pending charges for homicide that had a CPL.... out of almost 426k.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does that not translate to a murder rate of approximately 2 out of 100k population? So according to my analysis, CPL holders have a murder rate less than 1/2 of the approximate national rate which is about 4.7 per 100k. (and the 8 I'm referring to weren't all murders... man slaughter, and other charges were included)

So .000018% of the CPL population have perhaps unjustifiably killed someone last year.

Yep... those CPL holders are menaces to society!!!

Also, there is 2,997 total charges... with 935 of those being dismissed or found not guilty, leaving 2,062 pending or convicted. Out of 426k that's a whopping .004% of CPL holders are criminals.

So do people really think they have a leg to stand on with their claims that CPL holders shouldn't have guns? Do they really think that they have a statistical leg to stand on to claim that gun toters are whackos or that they're just going around LOOKING to shoot someone? Do they really have a leg to stand on to claim that gun toters are addressing every situation... altercation....confrontation they come upon by whipping out their gun?

Statistical analysis of the information from Michigan suggests the anti-gunners have absolutely no case.

I'm not surprised though that people continue to COMPLETELY talk out of their rear ends and argue based on emotion rather than logic and facts.

Pangea:TNel: Cold blooded killing is ok if they text and throw popcorn when you start making a scene?

I don't think you know what cold blooded means. Reacting as a result of direct provocation is by definition, not in cold-blood.

"done or acting without consideration, compunction, or clemency "

"showing no sympathy or mercy"

Guy didn't even think what he did was wrong. This wasn't an accident, this wasn't a fight that it was a life or death situation. The guy pulled out his gun and shot the guy because popcorn was thrown at him.

walktoanarcade:Not making excuses for super cop, but now that we're on the subject, there's no reason you should be texting in a theater.And yes, previews count. The previews are part of the experience, that's why they dim the lights at that time.

The necessity of your texts in the daylight are questionable as it is, and activating the bright lights inside a darkened theater is rude and inconsiderate to others trying to lose themselves in the experience. Traditionally previews provide the first glimpses of films that may later become cherished classics, and scores of people still enjoy them.

You think you're so important that you can't put away your phone for 1 1/2 to 2 hours?

Wow, so not only being objectively wrong, you had to go for the strawman also. It's been repeated in here multiple times in multiple ways. Texting during the previews is not wrong. The lights aren't even off at that point and people are still coming in. I'm sorry you think it is. You should definitely correct your beliefs to be more in line with reality. Then again....

Correct about what? The guy was arrested for, charged with, and will likely be convicted of murder. What were the alarmists correct about? Murderers being convicted of murder and sent to prison for murder?

Farker Soze:Danger Mouse: Footage from the theater video shows Popcorn dad tossing individual pieces of pop corn in the guys face one at a time while mocking him;

"What? are you going to do cry now? Are you going to cry? Huh?"

"What's the matter? Got some popcorn in your face?"

"What are you going to do? Shoot me?"

-BLAM-

That reminds me. Often, the last words of someone with a gun pointed at them is something along the lines of "go ahead, shoot me" and the shooter promptly does. Apparently, we're hardwired in a way where if someone gives you permission it breaks all of their otherwise strong inhibitions in this situation. So, if someone ever has you held at gun point, it is not a very good time for the snide "do it!" remarks you see in the movies.

Here is a perfect example of an "Internet Scientific Conclusion".

It has no basis in fact. It has never been studied. The poster has never read anything like this in a reputable book. It is simply made-up bullshiat that comes straight from the imagination of the poster and it is being passed to you as if it were a fact.

As I am certain that you will be able to demonstrate by showing that concealed weapons permit holders in "shall issue" states commit violent crime at a rate higher than that of the general populace.

That's a wonderful research question. And since "shall issue" started to become common after Congress blocked research into firearm violence, we need to study it.But why are you limiting your comparison to a small subset of concealed carriers?Is is because real research shows that when a higher percentage of the population is armed, there are higher rates of firearm homicide and suicide?

It's pretty easy to figure out that the answer is no. Go look at Florida's stats, Michigan's stats, or Texas' stats for CCW holders. It's far below the national and state average.

Shooting the guy was extreme. Simple axe handle to the throat after he got out of the movie would have sent the same point home and not killed the selfish jerk..Texting at 3.. Some gifted 3 year old then. Taking a gun into a theater makes about as much sense as taking a phone into one. Both are stupid moves that should be a cause for jail time.

Danger Mouse:Footage from the theater video shows Popcorn dad tossing individual pieces of pop corn in the guys face one at a time while mocking him;

"What? are you going to do cry now? Are you going to cry? Huh?"

"What's the matter? Got some popcorn in your face?"

"What are you going to do? Shoot me?"

-BLAM-

That reminds me. Often, the last words of someone with a gun pointed at them is something along the lines of "go ahead, shoot me" and the shooter promptly does. Apparently, we're hardwired in a way where if someone gives you permission it breaks all of their otherwise strong inhibitions in this situation. So, if someone ever has you held at gun point, it is not a very good time for the snide "do it!" remarks you see in the movies.

orclover:redmid17: Danger Mouse: Footage from the theater video shows Popcorn dad tossing individual pieces of pop corn in the guys face one at a time while mocking him;

"What? are you going to do cry now? Are you going to cry? Huh?"

"What's the matter? Got some popcorn in your face?"

"What are you going to do? Shoot me?"

-BLAM-

Would love to see a link to that footage.

We might yet. Modern theaters have cameras by the screens to watch the audiance to catch people using cameras to record the movies. Good odds that the entire incident was recorded as it happend (no audio prob). Might get a glimps of it soon maybe.

I mean I haven't heard a single thing about him actually taunting the guy from any news source at all. Just a few posters in this thread claiming he was laughing without anything to substantiate it. Also I doubt you'd be able to see much from an in theater camera since even during the previews the lighting is going to be bad. Besides it's a matinee screening, even if that auditorium had one it probably wasn't on.

The Larch:Latinwolf: A few people have already claimed he was at fault for daring to text during movie reviews.

He texted in a movie theater, then he laughed at an old man who asked him to stop, and then he threw popcorn at the old man and laughed at him some more when the manager failed to do anything about it.

I'm not saying that he deserved to die, but it's easy to see why someone would come to that conclusion.

Let me make this really, really, really simple.

If you think that escalating hurtful words to shooting someone and likely death is a reasonable conclusion, please turn over all your weapons, leave the United States, and never come back. You stand for everything America is against, you are a terrible human being, and you don't deserve the privilege of the life given to you.

There isn't any ambiguity here. The person harrassing someone for texting during the previews was wrong, deserved to have popcorn thrown in his self-righteous face (just move seats asshole if you care so much about the previews), and he deserves the death penalty for how he reacted. Anyone who agrees with his actions deserves the same fate.

Dimensio:Doc Daneeka: HaywoodJablonski: Fissile: This guy has a history of confronting people in movie theaters http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/florida-woman-alleged-theate r -shooter-confronted-texting-3-weeks-article-1.1580192

That's the flaw in all the "armed society is a polite society" theory. It's bullshiat.

Carrying a gun doesn't make you any more polite, it just makes you feel powerful. Every little incident of aggravation, annoyance, rudeness, aggressive driving, etc. that under other circumstances would result in a fistfight at worst, now results in dead bodies when people are armed.

When you have a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail, and when you carry a gun everywhere...well, it's not surprising what tends to happen.

I am certain that you will be able to justify your claims through reference to evidence showing that concealed weapons permit holders express a feeling of "power" and showing that concealed weapons permit holders commit violent crime at a rate substantially higher than that of the general adult population. I therefore eagerly anticipate being able to read that data.

Here's the chart for michigan. There are approximately 426,000 CPL holders in michigan. Nearly 1 out of every 19 adults.

Looks like 13 killings (charges for manslaughter, murder, etc...) with 5 of those being dismissed or found not guilty. That leaves 8 people convicted of homicide or having pending charges for homicide that had a CPL.... out of almost 426k.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does that not translate to a murder rate of approximately 2 out of 100k population? So according to my analysis, CPL holders have a murder rate less than 1/2 of the approximate national rate which is about 4.7 per 100k. (and the 8 I'm referring to weren't all murders... man slaughter, and other charges were included)

So .000018% of the CPL population have perhaps unjustifiably killed someone last year.

Yep... those CPL holders are menaces to society!!!

Also, there is 2,997 total charges... with 935 of those being dismissed or found not guilty, leaving 2,062 pending or convicted. Out of 426k that's a whopping .004% of CPL holders are criminals.

So do people really think they have a leg to stand on with their claims that CPL holders shouldn't have guns? Do they really think that they have a statistical leg to stand on to claim that gun toters are whackos or that they're just going around LOOKING to shoot someone? Do they really have a leg to stand on to claim that gun toters are addressing every situation... altercation....confrontation they come upon by whipping out their gun?

Statistical analysis of the information from Michigan suggests the anti-gunners have absolutely no case.

I'm not surprised though that people continue to COMPLETELY talk out of their rear ends and argue based on emotion rather than logic and facts.

TNel:The Larch: Latinwolf: A few people have already claimed he was at fault for daring to text during movie reviews.

He texted in a movie theater, then he laughed at an old man who asked him to stop, and then he threw popcorn at the old man and laughed at him some more when the manager failed to do anything about it.

I'm not saying that he deserved to die, but it's easy to see why someone would come to that conclusion.

You have to be trolling. So you are saying that, silently texting during previews then laughing at someone and throwing popcorn is enough to warrant someone getting shot? You seem to be defending the killer. Why would it be easy? Cold blooded killing is ok if they text and throw popcorn when you start making a scene?

On the scale of annoying, someone answering a text is about 1/10th as annoying as some smelly old fart having to shuffle passed me in the row so that he can empty his tiny bladder during the movie. The shooter's own son was on his way and was going to disrupt the other viewers when he had to come sit down - in my view that's much more rude that the victim in the story.

The Larch:Latinwolf: A few people have already claimed he was at fault for daring to text during movie reviews.

He texted in a movie theater, then he laughed at an old man who asked him to stop, and then he threw popcorn at the old man and laughed at him some more when the manager failed to do anything about it.

I'm not saying that he deserved to die, but it's easy to see why someone would come to that conclusion.

You have to be trolling. So you are saying that, silently texting during previews then laughing at someone and throwing popcorn is enough to warrant someone getting shot? You seem to be defending the killer. Why would it be easy? Cold blooded killing is ok if they text and throw popcorn when you start making a scene?

the money is in the banana stand:s2s2s2: I live in Austin, home of the Alamo Drafthouse theaters. They make a big deal about throwing people out for phone usage. Madonna recently got tossed for it.

Of course, servers constantly blocking the screen and talking is a feature. Maybe we should chill the fark out about texting in the theater. If the tiny screens are making it impossible for you to see the big screen, you may have an attention disorder.

/always turns my phone off

Then you are also familiar with the fact that people use their phones as flashlights to read the menus as Alamo which due to the height of the tables and stadium seating, is incredibly annoying since you cannot but help see a giant glowing screen. Thankfully, this doesn't happen often except when you get people who have never been to an Alamo Drafthouse and show up when the previews are rolling or when the movie itself starts - rather than get there early to order their buckets of beer and open them up so the clanging and bottle caps don't annoy everyone else.

/loves Alamo

So you go to a theater that serves beer where people order from your seat and you are offended when you are inevitably distracted? Why set yourself up for failure like that? If your expectation is a perfectly dark, silent movie theater, you will be disappointed every time.

the money is in the banana stand:deanis: Texting, teasing, and throwing popcorn!? . Seriously, if things this small in magnitude cause you fits of rage: seek help. I can't wait until the next time someone does something I don't necessarily like (the next time someone farts next to me on a plane, BOOM. Shows over cupcake).

While shooting him was totally uncalled for, beating him would not have been. If you don't think it is such a big deal, I am sure you would totally sit still if someone flung food at you or dumped their drink on you right? What would you do in that scenario, walk off if a 3rd party did nothing to resolve the situation? Do you have siblings? The first course of action is to tell Mom and Dad. If Mom and Dad don't do anything about it or your sibling continues to annoy you, you get a free pass to beat the shiat out of them and make them stop.

Typical tough guy response. Treat every situation as if YOU are a vigilante on a mission to teach someone a gd lesson about societal norms. Tease someone? Thats a beatin', text in a movie theater (BEFORE THE FARKING MOVIE EVEN STARTS)? thats a beatin', look at me funny? definite beatin'.

I'm glad that we have so many tough guys willing to be the judge, jury, and most fun of all, executioner.

Farker Soze:What? One asshole movie texter and one hothead overreacting idiot are now gone from society, slightly elevating the average politeness of civilization. Don't hate me because I'm telling it like it is.

Don't forget the ripple effect of having movie texters know that they're risking their lives by behaving like assholes.

Of course, there is the small matter of another family that was destroyed by an asshole cop.

farking_texan:Jim from Saint Paul: farking_texan: Jim from Saint Paul:I know what you present on here bub. Maybe you're different in the real world.You come off as an awful person with little to no regard for human life if that human life happens to do something you find annoying. It's all you present on here.

You didn't score high on reading comprehension tests, did you "bub"?

2/10. Your works earlier in the thread were much more convincing.

Yes, I'm just here to troll you. Try going back and actually reading what I wrote, Jimmy.

http://www.fark.com/comments/8101122/88728905#c88728905" data-cke-saved-href="http://www.fark.com/comments/8101122/88728905#c8 8728905">farking_texan:1. Turn off your freaking cell phone in the theater.2. Turn off your freaking cell phone in the theater.3. Checking up on your precious snowflake doesn't give you a valid excuse to ruin the moviegoing experience for other people. Take it outside.4. Turn off your freaking cell phone in the theater.5. A grown-ass man was throwing popcorn at someone who was asking him to act in a civilzed manner in a public place? Douchenozzle. Not deserving of death, but douchenozzle.6. A grown-ass man was throwing popcorn at someone who was asking him to act in a civilized manner in a public place. Douchenozzle.

You obviously come off as giving more of a shiat that the dude had his phone out then that he was murdered. I see LOTS of scentences on why the dead guy was awful and 4 words on how the murdered MAY have done somemthing wrong.

Hmmm..not much interesting here, just a lot of sad. Curits Reeves appears to be a typical insecure meat-head cop, with far below average intelligence. Based on the report someone else posted, he's been behving this way his entire life, which is typical of his ilk. He's a wretched piece of crap, and apparently always has been. I'll hope that he's brutally victimized and, ultimately, dies in prison. But I know better than to get my hopes up too high. There's no justice in this life, and probably not a next one.

The Larch:Latinwolf: A few people have already claimed he was at fault for daring to text during movie reviews.

He texted in a movie theater, then he laughed at an old man who asked him to stop, and then he threw popcorn at the old man and laughed at him some more when the manager failed to do anything about it.

I'm not saying that he deserved to die, but it's easy to see why someone would come to that conclusion.

Serious question: What's wrong with texting in a movie theater?

Using a phone in anyway during a performance, even to just check the time, in majorly annoying. In a dark theater the light of the screen is a big annoyance to everyone around.

But this wasn't during the movie. This was during previews, which I know some people take seriously, but are shown before the house lights come down.

So really, what's wrong with using a mobile phone in a theater before/after the performance? What if he took out the phone during the end credits, after the lights come up, so let someone know the movie was over? Is that a shooting too?

deanis:The Larch: Latinwolf: A few people have already claimed he was at fault for daring to text during movie reviews.

He texted in a movie theater, then he laughed at an old man who asked him to stop, and then he threw popcorn at the old man and laughed at him some more when the manager failed to do anything about it.

I'm not saying that he deserved to die, but it's easy to see why someone would come to that conclusion.

Texting, teasing, and throwing popcorn!? . Seriously, if things this small in magnitude cause you fits of rage: seek help. I can't wait until the next time someone does something I don't necessarily like (the next time someone farts next to me on a plane, BOOM. Shows over cupcake).

^this

In my entire life I think a total of two morons threw some popcorn at me, one time it was Milk Duds and I angrily told that guy to stop(those hurt) and he did, but no, never did anyone think of starting a fight or pulling a gun.

Someone throwing popcorn at you? You move if they won't stop.

It's only popcorn that someone threw at you. Oh no! Your pride! Get over yourself, everyone suffers indignities in life.

SpectroBoy:Dimensio: This incident is just another example of why "shall issue" concealed weapons permit statutes need to be repealed. The only people who should be allowed to legally carry firearms in public are law enforcement, active and retired.

[static4.fjcdn.com image 212x200]

Funny that so many fell for that. Seemed kind of obvious that it was sarcasm. Of course, whenever I read a post on the internet anymore I assume it's satire unless proven wrong.

kbronsito:My take on this... the retired cop was in his 70s but he still wants to be a tough guy and start shiat with people in the street. But a younger guy can really hurt him, so he need his gun. So you see, without a gun he wouldn't feel comfortable acting like a tough and picking fights in public. And isn't protecting his right to do that worth a few lives here or there?

That was my read too. The cop-as-bully thing is tough to pull of when you are 70 and that has got to be frustrating. He tried to intimidate the "the mad texter" who immediately sized up the 70 year old man as little threat. That probably pissed the ex-cop off even more. "Respect my authoratay!".

Finally the texter throw popcorn at the loudmouthed asshat who is SO freakin concerned that he might see a little phone light during PREVIEWS.

Dick move for sure, but not deserving of summary execution by grandpa small penis.

Once again, this case has nothing to do with Stand Your Ground. There was no retreating, need to retreat, or anything to do with retreating. There wasn't even an altercation.

One person got hit with popcorn, and wrecklessly murdered another human being through unlawful escalation of force.

If the state has the death penalty, he should get it. If not, the rest of his very short life will be spent behind bars. There's absolutely no controversy here. This shooter's life is effectively over as it should be.

Dimensio:walktoanarcade: This strikes me as first degree murder considering he brought the weapon into a place and situation where there's the least likelihood of harm or death and few people caught up in the rare scuffle inside a darkened movie house are prepared to be shot for throwing garbage or popcorn.

First degree murder is applicable only if he entered the theater with the intent to commit homicide. Without any demonstration of such intent at the outset, a first degree homicide charge is not appropriate.

That's part of why I started out with: "This strikes me as" and I'd agree that it would be a tall order if not outright impossible to charge him with much less prove murder in the first degree.

Still, I'd argue that he was looking for an excuse to shoot someone and he was most likely going to find somebody to pick on inside a packed movie theater. The chances of a texter telling you to eat shiat instead of politely dousing the irritating and distracting beacon are quite high in today's world, and I am sure the old ex copper knew that too. When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.

farking_texan:1. Turn off your freaking cell phone in the theater.2. Turn off your freaking cell phone in the theater.3. Checking up on your precious snowflake doesn't give you a valid excuse to ruin the moviegoing experience for other people. Take it outside.4. Turn off your freaking cell phone in the theater.5. A grown-ass man was throwing popcorn at someone who was asking him to act in a civilzed manner in a public place? Douchenozzle. Not deserving of death, but douchenozzle.6. A grown-ass man was throwing popcorn at someone who was asking him to act in a civilized manner in a public place. Douchenozzle.

The Larch:Wait... there are honestly and truly people in this thread defending the piece of subhuman filth who was texting in a movie theater?

Are you all just being ironic and edgy, or are you serious about this?

You know, personally when I go to the movie theater to text my friends once the lights go off (it's the only time it's dark and quiet enough for me to really compose a good text) I always bring my glock with me ... that way if anyone starts any trouble, I can just shoot them and make sure nothing bad happens. That's why we should all be walking around with guns all the time everywhere we go - so that when we are temporarily pissed off, we can solve our problems in the moment, right then and there.

Two douchebags are now permanently removed from society. It's a process.

Uh no. If the old guy lives long enough to survive the year of judicial process. He will be back out to kill again. His own son, a cop showed up at the scene first, all evidence that could convict this retired war hero is long gone. Wife better leave the state if she knows whats good for her and her daughter, or they will fark her life up. Accidents happen all the time.

I'm going to guess that when this guy gets convicted, as would seem inevitable based on the information available so far, those who are still butthurt about the GZ thing will take it as further evidence of a racial injustice toward TM.

Doc Daneeka:ChipNASA: varmitydog: Oulson was by all accounts a world class dad, just as his wife, Nicole, is a world class mom.

After reading this story, all I can think about is Nicole Oulson telling her three year daughter that her daddy was dead.And of all the years from now when they don't have him around. And for what?

Because he was an inconsiderate asshole.

SIT. DOWN. SHUT. THE. FARK. UP. WATCH. MOVIE. GO. HOME.

/profit?//He brought it on himself.

Texting during a movie a crime deserving death? Jesus.

Besides which, the movie hadn't even started yet. It was the farking previews.

1) The victim was texting, not talking, which sits much lower on the list of annoying things to do in a movie theater.2) The defendant's own son was about to cause his own disruption by arriving late. You think dad would have shot him too ?3) Disruptions that occur during previews just don't seem very important, except, pehaps, to a self-appointed theater vigilante cantankerous ex-cop with a gun. Wish he'd just taken up fishing instead.

The Larch:spiderpaz: The guy was texting (silent) his daughter during the previews (not even the movie) ... how much of an intolerant grumpy old fart do you have to be to go off and complain to management over something like that? Talking on the phone during the feature would be cause for maybe a soda on the head at worst - but this doesn't even register on the scale of dickhead things to do in a theater.

If you think texting during the previews is OK, I hope someone shoots you and kills you.

If you look at the big bright screen in front of you, you generally don't notice things like that. And seriously it's the previews.

If someone is texting during the movie and it's bothering you, by all means get the manager. They probably won't do anything, but they might.

The Dog Ate My Homework:Dimensio: This incident is just another example of why "shall issue" concealed weapons permit statutes need to be repealed. The only people who should be allowed to legally carry firearms in public are law enforcement, active and retired.

This is either a brilliant and subtly sarcastic observation, given the fact that the shooter in this case actually is a retired law enforcement officer, or it's really dumb.

trotsky:There will be no Zimmerman defense here. The old bully won't get oodles of right wing idiots donating cash to his defense. I find it odd none of my pro-Zimmerman friends have commented on this yet. Maybe because the victim, from the pictures I've seen, was an average guy who probably owned a few guns himself.

Then again, they're probably not that self-aware but the silence from the gun nut crowd over this is deafening.

Why would they chime in and defend this guy?

There is no reason to have shot Capt Text.

Save the 'use the same old argument line no matter what' for all the lefties that have already commented at how the old man has a small wiener and that is why he carries.

trotsky:There will be no Zimmerman defense here. The old bully won't get oodles of right wing idiots donating cash to his defense. I find it odd none of my pro-Zimmerman friends have commented on this yet. Maybe because the victim, from the pictures I've seen, was an average guy who probably owned a few guns himself.

Or maybesome people don't determine their opinions on cases based on how they like the victim or not, but rather on how much evidence there is to convict the accused.

trotsky:There will be no Zimmerman defense here. The old bully won't get oodles of right wing idiots donating cash to his defense. I find it odd none of my pro-Zimmerman friends have commented on this yet. Maybe because the victim, from the pictures I've seen, was an average guy who probably owned a few guns himself.

Then again, they're probably not that self-aware but the silence from the gun nut crowd over this is deafening.

The victim in this case wasn't on top of the shooter and pummeling him before he got shot.

and so here we have a person who pretty much anyone would assume to be the poster child for responsible gun carrying right? a former police captain.. old white guy.. isnt this pretty much exactly the person in mind when people go on about the good guy with a gun stopping the bad guy with the gun.. and yet.. here he is, turning out to be the bad guy with a gun. And a little girl is going to grow up without a father.

spiderpaz:In the Zimmerman trial, all they had to go with was the testimony of the defendant, the physical evidence, and a spotty eye witness that verified that Zimmerman was on the ground with Martin over him.

crzybtch:Obviously the cop should go to jail and so sad for the dead guys family (even if he was an arsehole).....but it is ironic how many times in the theater I have wished I could shoot people who:

text / check their mail / play games on their phone/devicetake ten minutes to open their candy in the noisiest way possibleeat their popcorn in a way that sounds like a pig gobbling crunchy sloplift their straw in and out making that awful plastic on plastic screeching soundkick the back of your seatsit in front of you in a virtually empty theatersit behind you in a virtually empty theaterTalk in a "whisper" that is loud enough to echoLaugh like a hyenaLet their kids do any of the aboveLet their kids run up and down the aisle

I am sure I can think of more if you give me time.

Just sayin'

That's what you get for being stupid enough to pay an exorbitant fee to cram yourself into a farking theater with other unwashed primitive screwheads. You bought the ticket, you take the ride... moron.

And the entire time you're wedged between two fatties with your eight dollar soda and 14 dollar popcorn ready to pop a vein in your forehead due to your rage-on the enlightened are smart enough to download a screener copy and watch the damn movie in the privacy and comfort of their own homes... Where things are far less likely to resemble a monkey cage whipped into a shiat-slinging frenzy.

Fark It:Smelly Pirate Hooker: The "stand your ground" thing is working fabulously. And I can understand why it was so necessary. How else are hysterical, easily frightened people with Dirty Harry delusions supposed to get away with killing people who bother them? I mean, before this landmark legislation, such a person might have thought twice about blowing away an unarmed person who had the temerity to be black or use a phone in a theater.

Now, all you have to do is claim you were afraid when you opened fire on someone with no way to defend themselves. No big deal.

Good job, Floriduh legislature.

Super_pope:

The Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act, which allows all retired law enforcement at every level of government to carry concealed weapons anywhere, with no oversight, was reauthorized and expanded twice by President Obama. It's OK to exempt active and retired law enforcement from any and all gun control, even though cops are much more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol, and be involved in domestic violence, but a national concealed carry program for people who want to undergo training and a background check? Out of the question.

LEOSA is a federal law that allows retired law enforcement to carry concealed weapons, with no oversight, anywhere, and invalidates local prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons. It was passed via unanimous consent in the Senate in 2004 and signed into law by President Bush. It has since been reauthorized and expanded twice by President Obama.

Well, that throws my other argument out. It may come down to justifying his carry under LEOSA, but still, if he did go out to his vehicle to obtain the weapon after the confrontation began, he again loses his affirmative defense.

Generation_D:Trivia Jockey: vpb: The problem is that all he has to do is claim that he was afraid and he is good. It doesn't matter if he actually had a reason to be afraid, it just matters that he was.

That's not true. Although I hate SYG, it doesn't just require a subjective feeling of fear. It requires a showing of reasonableness.

"Here's the thing," said Bob Dekle, legal skills professor at Levin. "It's not whether or not you're in fear. If the standard about shooting were fear that would give cowards carte blanche. The question is was there reasonable fear, was the fear reasonable?"

Yeah, but that's the logic Invader Zimm used when the Scary Black Kid was Walking and Talking on the Cell Phone in a threatening manner, wearing a hoodie and carrying skittles.

There's one tiny difference here: this happened in front of a theater full of witnesses that will all be able to testify that there's no way in hell the shooter should have been in fear of his life because of a flying popcorn ball. In the Zimmerman trial, all they had to go with was the testimony of the defendant, the physical evidence, and a spotty eye witness that verified that Zimmerman was on the ground with Martin over him. Comparing the two cases is ridiculous.

Turbo Cojones:Doc Daneeka: Dimensio: This incident is just another example of why "shall issue" concealed weapons permit statutes need to be repealed. The only people who should be allowed to legally carry firearms in public are law enforcement, active and retired.

Oh shut the fark up. It's bad enough having to read about so many completely unnecessary and tragic shooting deaths in this country, without always having to also see the pro-gun farkers pop ino every thread with their two bits.

Another child growing up without a father, all because this country is absolutely looney about guns.

This is yet another case that shows the sheer insanity of the idea that people carrying concealed weapons everywhere "for self-defense" makes society safer.

If we lived in a country with sensible gun control stories like these would be absolutely unthinkable.

See, you are dead wrong. If the man who was killed had been armed and SHOT the old guy instead of just throwing popcorn at he, he would still be alive today.

Why do I even have to point out this logical bit of info? He's dead because he was NOT ARMED!

And if every other person in the theater was armed (as they should have been), then nobody would have been killed!

The first article I read on this shooting reported that after the gentleman doing the texting rebuffed the idiot who shot him, the idiot went out to his car to get his gun. This made it premeditated murder. The ex-cop, aka idiot, should be ashamed of himself for the evil that he has done.

At one point, prosecutor Manny Garcia told the judge that after Monday's shooting, a woman had come forward to describe an incident at the same movie house in the town of Wesley Chapel last month."She was at the Cobb movie theater when she was confronted by the defendant for texting," Garcia reported.Garcia said that the 6-foot-1, 275 pound Reeves had even trailed the woman when she went to the ladies room in the midst of the movie."He was glaring at her the entire time," Garcia reported to the judge.

sounds like the old man had an authority complex. this is known as Zimmerman syndrome.

The "stand your ground" thing is working fabulously. And I can understand why it was so necessary. How else are hysterical, easily frightened people with Dirty Harry delusions supposed to get away with killing people who bother them? I mean, before this landmark legislation, such a person might have thought twice about blowing away an unarmed person who had the temerity to be black or use a phone in a theater.

Now, all you have to do is claim you were afraid when you opened fire on someone with no way to defend themselves. No big deal.

farking_texan:1. Turn off your freaking cell phone in the theater.2. Turn off your freaking cell phone in the theater.3. Checking up on your precious snowflake doesn't give you a valid excuse to ruin the moviegoing experience for other people. Take it outside.4. Turn off your freaking cell phone in the theater.5. A grown-ass man was throwing popcorn at someone who was asking him to act in a civilzed manner in a public place? Douchenozzle. Not deserving of death, but douchenozzle.6. A grown-ass man was throwing popcorn at someone who was asking him to act in a civilized manner in a public place. Douchenozzle.

JohnnyC:mbillips: The old guys' ONE fault was bringing a gun and using it.

Did you miss the part where he was stalking around behind a woman who had texted at the theater until she hid in the bathroom to get away from the angry old cuss? And did you miss that the guy was texting with his daycare provider and not his kid?

Seems you've overlooked some key facts to take your unpopular position on this. Maybe you ought to go re-read the article and make sure you actually understand the facts presented before you form an opinion?

unexplained bacon:farking_texan: 1. Turn off your freaking cell phone in the theater.2. Turn off your freaking cell phone in the theater.3. Checking up on your precious snowflake doesn't give you a valid excuse to ruin the moviegoing experience for other people. Take it outside.4. Turn off your freaking cell phone in the theater.5. A grown-ass man was throwing popcorn at someone who was asking him to act in a civilzed manner in a public place? Douchenozzle. Not deserving of death, but douchenozzle.6. A grown-ass man was throwing popcorn at someone who was asking him to act in a civilized manner in a public place. Douchenozzle.

Yes the tragedy here is that someone might have been an annoying asshat at a movie theater.

It's very telling that you barely acknowledge the murder but you seem pretty pissed about texting during a movie.

/you wouldn't happen to own a gun now would you?

I'm sorry, do you need me to explain that I believe murder is wrong? Hey, murder is wrong. The murder is an asshole. OK?

I own one antique rifle that I purchased almost 10 years ago and have never fired. Is that ok with you?

Blues_X:mbillips: This probably isn't a popular view, but my theory is that the victim was an entitled prick.

Exhibit A: He's texting to his THREE-YEAR-OLD during the previews. Fark, dude, you got a sitter and went to the movies. Stay in the moment; your precious snowflake won't die from lack of hovering.

Exhibit B: Cranky old man says something about the texting. Dickweed cops an attitude, points out that he's texting with his precious snowflake, so everyone should shut up. Cranky old man goes and tells the manager, who probably says, "It's the trailers, old dude; the house lights aren't even down all the way. Chill." Cranky old man comes back to his seat.

Exhibit C: Words are exchanged. I'm assuming Mr. I Got Shot copped an attitude about the old man narcing on him to the management. That's what you're supposed to do when someone is being a dick at the movies. Turning your farking phone off and leaving it in your pocket is the correct response to someone asking you to stop texting at the movies, not giving them a ration of shiat.

Exhibit D: Guy throws popcorn at an old man. Seriously, who throws popcorn? That's asking for a beatdown.

The old guys' ONE fault was bringing a gun and using it. Everything else is on the shooting victim. This should be a lesson to you gun fondlers out there, to leave the thing at home unless you're actually going somewhere hazardous, because there are pricks out there in the normal course of life that will make you LONG to shoot them.

So the couple that the crazy guy yelled at a week earlier were also entitled pricks?

Of course they were. They texted too. I mean, don;t you understand, it is totally okay for someone ELSE to murder someone who does something you don;t like.

Calm down. You can claim SYG or insanity or whatever defense your slimy lawyer can come up with. It does not mean you are getting off scott free. There is a judge or jury or both that have to agree you proved your case before that happens.

DROxINxTHExWIND:Well in their defense, if the guy was a cop and he managed to get through his career and retire with benefits they probably feel like they have a good idea about his background since he technically had to be mentally stable to hold the job.

You don't really read much about law enforcement in this country, do you?

I also assume they think that cops may have to deal with people who they have come into contact with during their careers who may not be happy about their last interaction.

So, cops are the only people who might run into dangerous and/or angry people? Are you saying that a concealed handgun is a good way to protect yourself from someone intent on doing harm?

CrazyCracka420:Nabb1: vpb: factoryconnection: Trivia Jockey: And SYG wasn't used at his trial. QED.

Oh, that is correct as well.

Not really. He didn't try to invoke the immunity in SYG, but "Stand Your Ground" changed the standards for self defense as well. It eliminates any requirement to retreat.

Hard to retreat when someone has you on the ground and is giving you the business...

Yeah Zimm shot Martin while Martin was on top of him...

[stream1.gifsoup.com image 320x200]

That's the way it was established at trial. At least that's how the jury saw it. The prosecutors sure couldn't establish otherwise. Even their own medical witnesses said Zimmerman's injuries were consistent with his story about being beaten. It's okay to be disappointed in the outcome, but at least educate yourself on how that outcome came to be what it was.

No, it likely won't. And here's the thing... (too bad there are 145 comments before this that may have already said this...)

As a defense attorney, it is your job to come up with THE BEST defense for your client. This is the way it has to be, even if many think it's absurd. For the attorney to NOT do that would mean that his client didn't get a fair trial. This could mean that the murdering bastard could go free. The defense, the prosecution, even the judge, know this.

So like it or not, the defense has to try like mad to prove his innocence so when his guilt is finally proven, it is beyond any reasonable doubt.

Begoggle:Dimensio: Generation_D: Trivia Jockey: vpb: The problem is that all he has to do is claim that he was afraid and he is good. It doesn't matter if he actually had a reason to be afraid, it just matters that he was.

That's not true. Although I hate SYG, it doesn't just require a subjective feeling of fear. It requires a showing of reasonableness.

"Here's the thing," said Bob Dekle, legal skills professor at Levin. "It's not whether or not you're in fear. If the standard about shooting were fear that would give cowards carte blanche. The question is was there reasonable fear, was the fear reasonable?"

Yeah, but that's the logic Invader Zimm used when the Scary Black Kid was Walking and Talking on the Cell Phone in a threatening manner, wearing a hoodie and carrying skittles.

You are correct. That Mr. Zimmerman also reported being pinned to the ground and repeatedly punched in the face by Mr. Martin was in no way a part of his legal defense.

Yes, making up multiple lies was part of his defense, not just one lie. Let's be fair.

I was not aware that Mr. Zimmerman's claim of being pinned against the sidewalk was proved to be a lie. When was this lie exposed, and for what reason did the prosecutor not only fail to refute the lie, but even admit an inability to do so?

vpb:factoryconnection: Trivia Jockey: And SYG wasn't used at his trial. QED.

Oh, that is correct as well.

Not really. He didn't try to invoke the immunity in SYG, but "Stand Your Ground" changed the standards for self defense as well. It eliminates any requirement to retreat.

As Mr. Zimmerman's defense included the claim that he was pinned on his back on the sidewalk and thus physically unable to retreat, and as the prosecution admitted an inability to disprove that claim, Mr. Zimmerman's defense would have been unchanged even if Florida law had explicitly mandated a "duty to retreat".

/Fun fact: a failed effort to supposedly repeal the "stand your ground" statute would not actually have repealed the "stand your ground" statute; it would have instead modified the state's "castle doctrine", while leaving the explicit declaration that no "duty to retreat" is imposed on an individual using deadly force in any location intact.//The text of the proposed bill.

Nabb1:Trivia Jockey: shanrick: Is it too soon to talk about popcorn control?

Yes, let's talk reasonable butter limits.

That shiat they put on movie popcorn is not butter. It's like an industrial lubricant made out of the most powerful cholesterol known to man.

I worked at a movie theatre as a poor college student. Had a '77 Dasher that burned oil like a motherfarker.

I have to admit that in some bleaker moments of poverty, in those darkest "hey, what's the worst that couId happen" musings, I seriously considered tapping off some of that free "butter" for the Dasher when I would have to choose between food or a few quarts of 10W40.

Trivia Jockey:Don't laugh. I remember the Great Popcorn Wars like they were yesterday. I still have flashbacks when I hear those "POP POP POP" sounds. The Battle of Canola Valley was particularly tragic.

POP POP in the attic theatre? The mere fact that you call it "POP POP" tells me you're not ready.

Trivia Jockey:vpb: The problem is that all he has to do is claim that he was afraid and he is good. It doesn't matter if he actually had a reason to be afraid, it just matters that he was.

That's not true. Although I hate SYG, it doesn't just require a subjective feeling of fear. It requires a showing of reasonableness.

"Here's the thing," said Bob Dekle, legal skills professor at Levin. "It's not whether or not you're in fear. If the standard about shooting were fear that would give cowards carte blanche. The question is was there reasonable fear, was the fear reasonable?"

Yeah, but that's the logic Invader Zimm used when the Scary Black Kid was Walking and Talking on the Cell Phone in a threatening manner, wearing a hoodie and carrying skittles.

Dimensio:Nabb1: Dimensio: This incident is just another example of why "shall issue" concealed weapons permit statutes need to be repealed. The only people who should be allowed to legally carry firearms in public are law enforcement, active and retired.